That’s good Joe, blast your readers for disagreeing with you. All I’m suggesting is that in the future, you spend more time researching facts than publishing pure conjecture. If that suggestion offends you, you’re in the wrong business my friend.

In a matter of a few years, this site will be within one half of a mile of countless restaurants, retail, and a brand new brown line stop at Division.

This site is near the center of this redevelopment zone. If you turn 180 degrees from the picture on this article, you’ll see a beautiful view of the skyline. Based on the plan above, that view is going nowhere; the half-mile area to the south will all be low and mid rise buildings.

All things considered, I would say this might be a raw area now but the developer is getting in on the ground floor in what will be a very desirable area in the near future.

I call it a picture of something anybody can drive past and see with their own eyes.

Delays on CHA plans in the past would be relevant if CHA were developing the sites. With regard to the larger planned developments, they’re not. They simply sign off on private developers’ plans to ensure it follows their blueprint for the area.

I directly addressed your opinion by providing fact showing what will be in the immediate vicinity in a short timeframe.

As for which sites are weaker, it’s a matter of perspective. My turn for an opinion: from an investment perspective, this site is superior to all other near north side locations because you don’t pay a premium for the land that you’d pay in an established neighborhood. Areas with established residential and commercial characteristics are inherently more expensive to acquire and develop because they’re in immediate demand. At worst, the surrounding area takes a little longer than planned to develop. It will still develop.

Repeat: “this project has the weakest location of any of the Near North Side developments.”

The CHA’s timetable for its properties in the area has a substantial impact on what happens over the next few years.

I look at this from the standpoint of prospective new residents. You’ve made my point for me by conceding this isn’t in an established neighborhood. Renters, who will have choices in the neighborhood, aren’t likely to base their decisions on a property’s long-term investment value to the developer.

Got some news for you: most of the people who visit this site aren’t driving down Division Street very often.

I haven’t in any way suggested that the area isn’t going to change for the better in coming years. It will. The investment value can be argued from a lot of perspectives – there’s a reason why most developers pay the premium for more desirable locations.

Do you have a relationship with this site that you should have disclosed?

Right, the CHA’s timetable for its properties. It neither currently nor ever has owned all the land in the area, like this site for instance.

You look at it from a resident standpoint, I look at it from an investment standpoint. Agree to disagree.

No, I am not related to this site in any way. I’m an MBA student in the city and have flipped 6 houses, so I look at location from an investment perspective. If I were related to this site in some way, why would that need to be disclosed anyway? It’s not like a pump and dump scheme on a stock.